[EM] Dave Gamble reply, 2/2/04

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Because I'm more considerate to the list than Dave is, I'm not going to copy 
& reply to his entire long rant. I'll just reply to a few selected 
statements. But there's still a lot, because Dave's ravings are quite long.

And, Dave, your postings do have a ranting character found only in your and 
Craig's postings.

Dave said:

No Mike you misunderstood me, I said that unknown candidates can quite
possibly end up near the voter median by virtue of being unknown.

I reply:

Yes, and that's why I replied that your unknown candidate isn't likely to 
have that important voter median position all to himself.

Dave said:

What came first Mike your understanding ( and liking) of Condorcet type
methods or some of the criteria on your website. I do recall that in a 
previous
post you told me that you had written some of them. I would guess it was a
synergetic process your liking for Condorcet type methods led to your 
development of
some of your "objective" criteria

I reply:

"I would guess". Yes, that sums it up well, doesn't it. You would guess. I 
already told you that you guess wrong. People who prefer Condorcet wv prefer 
it because of its properties.

You "would guess" about other people's motives. At our website we completely 
describe the standards & criteria that have led to our method 
recommendations. You, instead of making some criticism about the methods or 
criteria themselves, prefer to just "guess" about our motives and honesty. 
Our website discusses voting systems and criteria for evaluating them. You, 
on the other hand, discuss only your guesses about the motives and honesty 
of the people with whom you disagree on something.

If you don't have specific objections to our methods or criteria, then be 
quiet.

You continued:

and the "objective" criteria you
discovered/wrote reinforced your liking of Condorcet type systems.

I reply:

You're guessing again, aren't you, when you suggest that our criteria are in 
some way not objective. Not objective in the sense that yoiu guess that they 
were chosen to promote method that we actually like for other unspecified 
reasons.

You said:

Two Condorcet criteria, which surprise, surprise only Condorcet meets.

I replied:

So now are you also saying that Condorcet first decided that he liked his
method, and then contrived a criterion that it would meet? I suggest that
all that deviousness is in your mind.

You replied:

Mike that would be ridiculous, Condorcet invented his method 200 years ago
and it was given his name after its invention

I reply:

Irrelevant. You're suggesting that it's a suspicious coincidence that 
Condordet's method meets Condorcet's Criterion. Condorcet stated his 
criterion (though he probably didnt name it Condorcet's Criterion), and then 
proposed his methods which just happen to meet his initial criterion that 
led him to propose the methods. As you said, "Surprise, susrprise".

Dave said:

If each criteria is not for a different strategy surely some of your 
criteria
must be repetitions or least very similar.

I reply:

Actually no. The criteria are for different conditions. Truncation needn't 
be done as a strategy. Some of the criteria are for when there's no 
falsification, some don't make that stipulation. One is for when there's a 
CW. Some make stronger guarantees than others. But why is it necessary for 
me to explain that to you. Read them before you assertively voice your 
ignorance.

You continued:

Why not have just one strategy
criteria-

I reply:

As I said, "criteria" is a plural. The singluar is "criterion".

You continued:

something like "the method must be immune to strategic manipulation"
(more cleverly worded of course).

I reply:

Yes, it would have to be something a bit better than that :-)

You're new to the subject, and I don't criticize you for that. But I do 
suggest that you aren't quite ready to come here and tell us how it is.

Dave said:

Let's quote part of your criterion back to you in case
you'vre forgotten it

"Under IRV, therefore, every individual vote (rank list) must be available 
at
a central location to determine the winner. In a major public election, that
could be millions or even tens of millions of votes. The votes cannot be
compressed by summing as in other election methods because votes may need to 
be
transferred according to which candidates are eliminated in each round"

You then said:

That is in essence what I said and what you appear to be saying.

I reply:

No argument with our own words, but I'd merely said, and I stand by it, that 
the problem with nonsummable methods isn't just that the rankings must be 
sent to a central location--it's that they have to be counted in one big 
non-parallel count, less accessible to checking and security controls than 
the separate parallel local counts of Condorcet & Approval.

You'd said:

Where is latter-no-harm?

I replied:

I refer you to my posting entitled "Woodall's Whacky, Zany Criteria".

I reply:

Mike this really will not do. Many people ( I gather though looking through
copies of Voting Matters and from other sources ) not just Woodall consider
this is to be a very important criterion.

I reply:

Congratulations. You've got it exactly backwards:

What _will_ do is discussion of the consequences of a criterion's 
requirements, and comparison of a criterion to other criteria, in regards to 
meaningfulness and effectiveness. That's what my posting was about.

What _won't_ do is your attempt to invoke authority by vaguely saying that 
important people think Woodall's criteria are important.


I'd said:

I make no secret of the fact that Condorcet (like IRV & all rank methods
except Borda) doesn't pass Participation.

I you replied:

You do by ommision if you don't mention it.

I reply:

I daresay that there are very many criteria that I don't discuss Condorcet's 
compliance or noncompliance with. As I said, we don't have time to cover all 
the criteria that some twit might come up with, nor do we want to clutter 
our website with them. We list criteria that we consider iimportant.

Still, I've often said here that Condorcet fails Participation, that IRV 
fails Participation, and that Approval passes Participation.

You said:

Mike, you website gives the impression that it is an objective evaluation of
election methods. I have not objection to people advocating a certain 
system,
that is their right but to pass it off as impartial, balanced and objective
when it is not is something I find really annoying. Take Blake Cretney's
Condorcet.org it says it straight away I am advocating a system based on the 
ideas of
Condorcet. Take Marcus's paper I am advocating (and describing the 
properties
both good and bad) of a system I devised called Schulze.

I reply:

We make it clear that we advocate Approval and Condorcet. It isn't quite 
clear what you're trying to  say. But then it usually isn't.

You continued:

I'd said:

If an expert is someone from whom you need to learn, then yes Dave, to you
I'm an expert.

You  replied:

Quite honestly I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Mike's ego seems to 
know
no bounds. How can somebody say something like that? One person, one vote,
when it comes down to it in the end my opinion is as valid as any other.

I reply:

Now we come to the source of your problem: You believe that your opinions on 
things that you're ignorant about are as valid as those of anyone else. 
Thank you for being so honest about that belief of yours. It has led you to 
make an ass of yourself.

You said:

Mike's statement that

"The person who can't make his case on the merits of facts about the topic,
will often do what David is doing: Speculate about the motives of others.
Theorize that they're misrespresenting their reasons for their advocacy."

is indeed true. That is not what I am doing though, I am saying the facts 
are
partial and incomplete

I reply:

No, you haven't found fault with our criteria or methods themselves. But 
you've speculated about our motives for not listing every criterion that 
some silly has come up with. You say that our facts are partial and 
imcomplete because we're not a survey or encyclopedia of every idiot's 
criteria.

You said:

This is another
very good effective technique used by people who lack the confidence to make
their case on the merits of the facts about the topic.

I reply:

Again you've got it exactly backwards:

Our website carefully spells out standards and criteria, things that we 
consider desirable in a voting system, and defines and advocates voting 
systems that meet those criteria. But, instead of trying to criticize the 
criteria or methods on "the merits of the facts about the topic", you only 
tell us about your "guesses" and speculation about our motives, and whether 
we liked the methods before the criteria or the criteria before the methods. 
So you need to reconsider which one it is who  lacks the confidence to make 
their case on the merits of the facts about the topic.

You said:

What if every poster
to The EM list used Mike's  rhetorical techniques  (which I am attempting to
copy in this post). It would be more a matter of who can write the cleverest
insult or put-down rather than a discussion of electoral methods.

I reply:

Your rants are empty of anything but rhetorical efforts. Angry noises. 
That's it. That's what distinguishes your postings.

If you don't like our criteria or methods, tell us what you think is wrong 
with them or be so good as to be quiet.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963